MARCH 16

Comrades, it seems to me that there will be no need to speak at great length on this question, since our entire congress has already approached, on all questions, those themes which must now be stated officially on behalf of the congress of the party, and therefore on behalf of the whole party. As regards the resolution "on unity,"* it contains to a considerable extent a characterization of the political situation. You have of course all read the printed text of this resolution that was distributed. The seventh point, which introduces an exceptional measure—the right to expulsion from the Central Committee on condition of a majority of two-thirds of the general assembly of members of the Central Committee and candidates and members of the Central Control Commission—is not to be published. At private meetings, where representatives of all shades of opinion spoke, this measure was discussed repeatedly. Let us hope, comrades, that we shall not have to apply this point, but it is necessary given the new situation in which we stand, facing a rather sharp turning point, and we want to eliminate the traces of separatism.

I turn to the resolution on syndicalist and anarchist deviations. Here we have a question touched upon by the fourth point of the congress agenda. The crux of the entire resolution is the definition of our attitude toward certain tendencies or deviations of thought. By saying "deviations," we thereby emphasize that we do not yet see anything finally formed, anything absolute and fully determined here, but only the beginning of a political direction which cannot remain without the party's assessment. In the third point of the resolution on syndicalist and anarchist deviation, which you probably all have, there is evidently a typographical error (as is evident from remarks, this error has been noticed). One should read: "characteristic is, for example, the following thesis of it," that is, "of the 'workers' opposition'": "The organization of the management of the national economy belongs to the all-Russian congress of producers united in professional production unions, which elect the central organ managing the entire national economy of the republic."* We have already spoken repeatedly at the congress about this point, both at private meetings and at the open general sessions of the congress. It seems to me that we have already clarified that one cannot in any way defend this point by referring to the fact that Engels has a discussion about the union of producers, because it is absolutely evident, and accurate reference to the corresponding passage establishes that Engels is speaking of communist society, where there will be no classes. This is indisputable for all of us. When there are no classes in society, there will remain in society only worker-producers; there will be neither workers nor peasants. And we know perfectly well from all the works of Marx and Engels that they distinguish with the utmost precision between the period when classes still exist and the period when they will no longer exist. Marx and Engels mercilessly ridiculed thoughts, speeches and suppositions about the disappearance of classes before communism, and said that only communism is the abolition of classes.

We have come to a situation where we have first raised practically the question of this abolition of classes, and in a peasant country we now find ourselves with two fundamental classes—the working class and the peasantry. Alongside them—whole groups of remnants and survivals of capitalism.

Our program definitely states that we are taking the first steps, that we will have a whole series of transitional stages. But we see most vividly in the practice of our Soviet work and throughout the entire history of the revolution that it is incorrect to give such theoretical definitions as the opposition gives in this case. We know perfectly well that we still have classes and will have them for a long time, that in a country with a predominant peasant population they will inevitably remain for a long time, many years. The minimum period in which one could set up large industry in such a way that it would create the means to subordinate agriculture to itself is estimated at ten years. This period is minimal, under unprecedentedly favorable technical conditions. But we know that we find ourselves in conditions that are unprecedentedly unfavorable. We have a plan for building Russia on the basis of modern large industry—this is the plan for electrification, worked out by scientific forces. There the minimum period is set at ten years, if one assumes conditions at the base that approximate something like normal ones. But we know perfectly well that these do not exist. This means that a decade is for us a very short period—there is no point even in saying this. We have entered the heart of the matter: it is possible that there remain classes hostile to the proletariat, and therefore practically we cannot now create that which Engels speaks of. There will be the dictatorship of the proletariat. Then there will be a classless society.

Marx and Engels waged merciless struggle against people who forgot about the distinction between classes, who spoke of producers, of the people, or of the working masses in general. Anyone who knows to any extent the works of Marx and Engels cannot forget that there runs through all these works a ridicule of those who speak of producers, of the people, of the working masses in general. There are no working masses in general, no working masses in general, but rather either a small proprietor owning the means of production, with whose entire psychology and all the habits of life are capitalistic—and they cannot be otherwise—or a wage worker with a completely different psychology, a wage worker in large industry, standing in antagonism, in contradiction, in struggle with the capitalists.

If we have come to this question after three years of our struggle, having experienced the application of the political power of the proletariat, when we know what enormous difficulties exist in the relations between classes, when they still remain, when remnants of the bourgeoisie are still observed in all the chinks of our life, within Soviet institutions themselves—under such conditions the emergence among us of a platform with the theses I have read represents an obvious and evident anarcho-syndicalist deviation. These words are not excessive; they are deliberate. A deviation is not yet a formed tendency. A deviation is something that can be corrected. People have strayed somewhat from the path or are beginning to stray, but correction is still possible. This, in my view, is what is expressed by the Russian word "deviation" [uklón]. This is an emphasis on the fact that there is still nothing final here, that the matter is easily correctable—this is a desire to warn and to pose the question in its full scope and on principle. If anyone finds a Russian word that expresses this thought better—please. I hope we shall not quarrel over words, but shall examine this thesis as fundamental on the basis of its content, in order not to dash off after the multitude of similar ideas that the "workers' opposition" group possesses in great quantity. We shall leave that to our literary workers to examine, as well as to the leaders of this tendency, since at the end of the resolution we deliberately say that in special publications, collections, space can and should be given for more thorough exchange of opinion among party members on all the indicated questions. We do not have time now to put this question aside. We are a party struggling under conditions of acute difficulties. We must say to ourselves: for unity to be firm, a certain deviation must be condemned. Once it has appeared, it must be revealed and discussed. But if a thorough discussion is needed—by all means! We shall find people who will present all the literature in detail, and, if it is necessary and appropriate, we shall pose this question even on an international scale, as you have just heard in the report of the Comintern representative, and you all know about the existence of a certain leftist deviation in the ranks of the international revolutionary workers' movement. The deviation we are now discussing is the same as the anarchist deviation in the German communist workers' party, the struggle against which was clearly manifested at the previous Comintern congress.

I consider the fourth paragraph of this resolution to be very important, as it gives an authentic interpretation of our program, that is, such an interpretation as proceeds from the author. The congress is the author of it, and therefore the congress must give an interpretation to put an end to wavering, and sometimes even to the game that is being played with our program—as if the program says the same thing about trade unions as some would like to see there. You have heard from this tribune the criticism of this program by Comrade Ryazanov—let us thank the author of this criticism for his theoretical investigations! You have heard the criticism given by Comrade Shlyapnikov. One cannot pass over this in silence. It seems to me that here, in this resolution, we have what we need now. On behalf of the congress, which affirms the program and which is the highest organ of the party, one must say: this is how we understand this program. I repeat that theoretical disputes are not cut off by this. Proposals to change the program may be made; no prohibition is introduced on this score. We do not consider the program so excellent that nothing in it needs to be changed, but we do not now have formal proposals; we have not devoted time to examining this question. Reading this program carefully, we find here the following: "trade unions must come to actual concentration, and so forth," "must come to actual concentration"—this must be emphasized. And above we read that "according to law, trade unions are participants in all local and central organs of production management." We know that capitalist production, with the assistance of all the advanced countries of the world, was built over decades. Have we already fallen into childishness to think that at a moment of greatest necessity, of impoverishment in a country where workers constitute a minority, in a country with a tormented, blood-drained proletarian vanguard and a mass of peasants, we can complete this process so quickly?! We have not even yet laid the basic foundation; we have only begun to work out in practice how to conduct this management of production with the participation of trade unions. We know that the main obstacle is necessity. It is wrong to say that we do not attract the masses; on the contrary, every talent of any note, the slightest outstanding ability in the working masses meets the most sincere support from us. One need only have conditions lighten somewhat. We need a year or two of relief from hunger, no less. From the perspective of history, this is a negligible period, but in our conditions it is a considerable period. A year or two of relief from hunger, a year or two of proper supply of fuel so that factories work—and we shall receive from the working class a hundred times more support, and from its ranks there will emerge far more talent than we have now. No one doubts, no one can doubt this. Now we do not receive this support not because we do not want it. We are doing everything that can be done for it. No one will be able to point out that the government, the trade unions, the Central Committee of the party missed even one possibility in this respect; but we know that necessity is desperate, that everywhere there is hunger and poverty, and time and again on this soil there arises passivity. Let us not be afraid to call evil and misfortune by its true name. This is what holds back the rise of energy from the masses. In such a situation, when we know from statistics that 60 percent of workers sit in the management organs, to attempt now to interpret the program's words—"trade unions must come to actual concentration," and so forth—to attempt to interpret them in Shlyapnikov's way—is absolutely impossible.

An authentic interpretation of the program will give us the opportunity to combine necessary tactical cohesion and unity with necessary freedom of discussion, which is emphasized at the end of the resolution. What does the resolution amount to? Let us read point six:

"On the basis of all this, the congress of the RCP, decisively rejecting the indicated ideas expressing syndicalist and anarchist deviation, resolves, in the first place, to recognize as necessary a steady and systematic struggle with these ideas; in the second place, to recognize propaganda of these ideas incompatible with membership in the RCP.

Entrusting the Central Committee of the party with the strictest implementation of these resolutions, the congress indicates, at the same time, that in special publications, collections, and the like, space can and should be given for the most thorough exchange of opinion among party members on all the indicated questions."

Do you not see—you are all agitators and propagandists in one form or another—do you not see the difference between propaganda of ideas within fighting political parties and exchange of opinion in special publications and collections? I am convinced that anyone willing to understand this resolution sees this difference. And we hope that those in the Central Committee into which we are taking representatives of this deviation will treat the decision of the party congress as any conscious, disciplined member of the party; we hope that with their help in the Central Committee we shall sort out this boundary without creating a special situation; we shall sort out what is happening within the party—propaganda of ideas within a fighting political party or exchange of opinion in special publications and collections. Those interested in studying Engels' quotations down to the finest point—by all means! There are theoreticians who will always give the party useful advice. This is necessary. We shall publish two or three large collections—this is useful and absolutely necessary. But does this resemble propaganda of ideas, struggle of platforms, can this be confused? No one who wishes to understand our political situation will confuse this.

Do not hinder our political work, especially at a difficult moment, but do not abandon scientific investigations. If Comrade Shlyapnikov, for example, in addition to the volume he recently published on his experience of revolutionary struggle in the period when it still had an illegal status, adds in his free time in the coming months a second volume with an analysis of the concept of "producer"—by all means! And the given resolution will serve us as a milestone. We have opened the broadest, most free discussion. The "workers' opposition" platform was printed in the party's Central Organ in a quantity of 250,000 copies. We weighed it from all sides and in all ways; we held elections on the basis of this platform; we finally assembled a congress which sums up the results of the political discussion and says: the deviation has become defined; let us not play hide-and-seek; let us say openly: a deviation is a deviation, it must be corrected; we shall correct it, and the discussion will become a theoretical discussion.

This is why I renew and support the proposal that we adopt both these resolutions, reinforce party unity, and give the correct definition of what party meetings should concern themselves with and what individuals—Marxists, communists who wish to help the party and deal with one or another question of theory—are free to deal with in their free moments. (Applause.)

*Pravda* No. 68, March 30, 1921